Tidal effects should follow from the inertial free fall of each galaxy in the accelerating expansion of the Universe. So we show that growing rotation of galaxies is due to tidal acceleration, and causes the apparent need for dark matter, in the same way that the inertial free fall condition of all galaxies causes the apparent need for dark energy.
As seen in the main article, the accelerating expansion of the Universe may be understood as the combined effect of the inertial free falls of all galaxies. For an observer in any galaxy, his/her reverse acceleration from all the rest of the Universe causes the global redshift of other galaxies’ light, and the rising of an “Aurora Mirror” from his/her cosmic background, or horizon, in such a way that nothing can differentiate, in physical terms, his/her condition from what we know and understand as free fall.
Like any free fall, this one should cause tidal effects. But the net acceleration of each galaxy is relative to all the points of its spherical horizon (or background), so that tide does not have a privileged direction, but it emerges like a growing rotation involving each galaxy, while Universe’s age (and entropy) increases. This growing tidal rotation causes the apparent need for dark matter, in the same way that the inertial free fall condition of every galaxy causes the apparent need for dark energy.
In this article we show why inertial tide results in a growing rotation of each galaxy, with three examples involving three ideal and approximate scales, going from high heterogeneity to high homogeneity, and two other considerations. Before you continue, we simply point out that this growing rotation, as seen in the main article, implies increasing local space rotation, in order to balance the increasing inertia added to the respective local scale system.
Supercluster level: “Earth and Moon” example. The Moon is orbiting around the Earth less rapidly than how quickly Earth is spinning, so Earth’s rotation keeps the position of tidal bulge of the oceans (and its mass) ahead of the position directly under the Moon. If we take the Moon away, distancing it from the Earth, the inertia of the bulge, whilst its level falls, gives more angular momentum to the Earth spin, making the day get shorter. So if we give a component of radial acceleration to our satellite, some angular momentum is transferred from the previous orbital motion of the Moon to the present rotation of the Earth. This due to the irregularity of Earth’s surface and to the liquid (non-rigid) nature of this irregularity (the oceanic bulging). The same goes for single galaxies and clusters: it is the non-rigid irregularity of their mass distribution to make their angular momentum grow while all the other clusters gain a net component of radial acceleration. If orbits in a cluster get higher angular momentum, much of this, through tidal effects, will be transferred to single galaxies in the course of time.
Filament level: “an imaginary Jupiter with its satellites” example. Let’s imagine a situation similar to the previous one, this way an extrasolar Jupiter with many of its satellites in a momentary alignment: if we give a radial acceleration to this group of bodies, taking them away from the planet, we transfer some of their orbital angular momentum to the main body, which is a gas giant (whereas any supercluster is very much more irregular, and then more subjected to tidal accelerations). Our conclusion does not change if there are a few other satellites, which are revolving out of that line. If they are not evenly spaced, their inverse radial acceleration makes a contribution to the angular momentum of the giant planet. All those influences transform tidal effects in tidal accelerations: they are little but continuous in Universe’s time. One important difference, to be remarked, is that from this level up, a few outer “satellites” – to stay in our example – begin to show retrograde direction orbits: this does not decrease but enhances the remote influence of their net radial acceleration.
Indeed superclusters have different directions of space rotation to the extent that they are set around any of several cosmic voids; so well-known voids are like amphidromic points or tidal nodes of an ocean, i.e. regions wherein spins of the space fabric are almost neutralizing each other.
The Universe is keeping relatively high spin and irregular regions (superclusters, linked by filaments) around relatively low spin but regular ones (cosmic voids). So entropy has a slightly different meaning from the ordinary one in the logic of the Cosmos, and this is very important with regard to large structure formation and keeping up. Space rotation factor is storing a considerable part of ever increasing entropy into those expanding, regular and almost empty dump-sites; while a further part is to be stored in tidal-accelerating spins of galaxies and clusters, with the consequence of preserving low scale heterogeneity.
Global level: “the galaxy in a glass bowl” example. Let’s imagine a single galaxy in a very large glass bowl. We might see accelerating expansion as the continuous growing of the glass bowl, but we might say the same thing by presuming the glass bowl as unchanged, while seeing the galaxy becoming progressively smaller and smaller. Since this involves a progressive reduction of its moment of inertia, its angular velocity, or spin, must increase (like an ice skater who withdraws her arms).
Our consideration is not so arbitrary. The glass of the bowl is not the boundary of its universe, for the lonely galaxy. Since the bowl is not spinning, that glass is the ideal line where space rotation, involving galaxy’s spin, ends, because from that line forward counter-spin or reverse spin prevails (global spin of the Universe is to be zero, so our imaginary galaxy has to be encircled, from a certain point forward, by a counter-rotating zone). We could say that the bowl represents the unfolding over a spherical surface of a tidal node (from a random cosmic void – the hemispheric asymmetry we see in CMB or “Aurora Mirror” could be explained following the same principle: we cannot look at the entire background, i.e. at the whole “sky”, as if it all might ever rotate in one single direction). Global accelerating expansion distances that ideal surface, or line, so, with respect to its space-rotating region, our galaxy (which following our example is the only massive object in its zone, hence the only object wherein inertia exists) gets a relatively minor momentum of inertia.
The consequence: large scale homogeneity in galaxies distribution is the condition that keeps to its minimum the average moment of inertia of each of them, at a given era. As seen by an observer in a galaxy, at a given era, it is also the condition that preserves to its minimum his/her galaxy combination of radial acceleration and angular momentum, i.e. the mix of proper inertia and local space tide: in fact, any other distribution would be more dissipative, and global motions would be in the direction of removing any global heterogeneity (and of increasing, in the same time, the local one).
The real observer. For an observer in inertial free fall together with his/her galaxy, attributing the global redshift to the remote inertial mass or to the relative reverse acceleration (or proper inertia) is, for the equivalence principle, to say two identical things. So dark energy and far (non-local) dark matter seem to be what we simply name remote inertia. By measuring it, that observer, if in free fall, is measuring his/her own entire proper inertia.
The speed of any observer, relative to his/her deep background (or horizon), cannot exceed the speed of light. Any further acceleration must result in a growing relativistic mass (or proper inertia). However his/her galaxy space-spin has grown up, during Universe’s life, owing to tidal acceleration: i.e. remote inertia has been added to his/her local system, so that much of its proper inertia has been counterbalanced. Therefore any level local space tide is the complex and aggregate process that lead to minimize, at every era, both relativistic proper inertia, and relativistic remote inertia (since global net space-spin is to have the opposite direction than any local level net one). Some galaxy within a cluster may experiment low spin, but only because staying in a (relative) tidal node, whereas remote inertia is added by other galaxies, more accelerated, in its neighbourhood.
Rotational tide adds relative remote inertia, which is what we until now have named dark matter, with space spinning. For an observer who, this time, in order to see the redshift (the part due to the common space rotation) of an outer star in his/her galaxy, lets the near space go beyond him/herself, keeping him/herself backward, and then counter-accelerated (see my article Einstein is asked about dark matter), well we should say the same as before: attributing the measured redshift to the remote inertial mass of the star, or to his/her relative inverse acceleration (or proper inertia) is saying two identical things. But now he/she has changed his/her condition of free fall! Indeed, real observer’s need to change own condition from free fall to weight/like acceleration, in order to measure redshift, explains why Lambda/CDM model names either energy or matter its dark components, since the former implies a radial acceleration, as net component of local systems real trajectories, while the latter causes the spinning of local space, equivalent to a tidal acceleration (or gradient-balancing acceleration). Tide causes the relative lack of relativistic mass we have seen above: without this lack, due to space spins, our Universe would not have had any discrete structure (and any observer). Any scale discrete structures cause local gradients: so the phenomenon we describe is circular, and, as expected, needed gradient is no other than needed local heterogeneity. Therefore, it’s easy to think that mass and spin were born together.
The emergent property of the equivalence principle (see my “Einstein etc.”) is the real factory or forge of the Universe, leading both to the anytime observation of the cosmological principle, and to the anytime evolution of its discrete structures. Our entire argument is based on this eye-opening consideration: relative inertial mass is increasingly greater than gravitational one, but this is precisely what is enabling the equivalence principle, by its necessary emergence, to dynamically structure all we see in the sky.
Mass and space were born together: we have known for centuries the main features of space, “extension” (Descartes), and “dimensionality” (Newton); for one century the third one, “curvature” (Einstein); now we could have known the fourth, “spin”. So probably, the emergence of space spins is also the better explanation of the topic “flatness of space”, that is, the true reason why we do not succeed in measuring scale curvature outside (or above) space-comoving systems like the galactic one.
Besides the consideration of space/rotating systems and of the emergent property of the equivalence principle, a third main aspect characterizes our extension of General Relativity to a revisited role of inertia. In fact EGR does not foresee any gravitational singularity, or event horizon, given that a correlated space precession is combined with extreme curvatures of space-time. This feature could be predictive, since we are close to see for the first time the almost uniform radio emissions of Sagittarius A*, the centre of our galaxy, which is going to appear both a still supermassive monster and a very very dark winking superstar! Till now, VLBI technology has revealed that “its emission region is so small that the source may actually have to point directly at the direction of the Earth”: apart from the lack of blueshift effect related to that radio jet/bullet fired at us, everyone may value the probability of the phenomenon; see also the wonderful images: Lifting the veil on the black hole at the heart of our Galaxy“.
So this feature will be the subject of the next article.